DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Why I’m Voting For Opposite Man (Video)

link doesn't work for me.

respectfully responding here:

Arch, you're definitely on record as saying this, more than once. In fact, I recall you saying that he wasn't really your second, maybe even third choice. I'd like to ask you a couple questions that might clear up some confusion on my part.

1. If you voted against HRC, would you have voted for some other candidate, had she not won the nomination?

2. If you voted against HRC, why have we never seen you utter a single word of criticism about POTUS 45? In fact, I have actually seen you defend him at times when his behavior was something I know you'd never tolerate from yourself, me, or anyone else you respected.

See... I think you're more of a Trump fan than you let on.


I invite your answer, because I'd really like to understand.



p.s. at a later date, maybe we could discuss the reasons so many people from so many different walks of life (not just extreme lefties) hate this guy. Hint: it isn't simply because he won...

Weren't talking to me, but I'll respond anyway.

In 2016, even though he's the polar opposite of me, politically, I would've voted for Bernie. I voted for him during the Dem primary (I was living in CA, and Republicans didn't allow registered independents to vote in primaries, but Dems did).

Instead, I went 3rd party. Won't do that this time around.

I doubt it. Not Bernie. Who else was there? No need. There's enough of that going on. At times, perhaps ...... In your eyes, and perhaps in others eyes. That's fine. I answered, honestly.

Now watch the replies I get.

Thanks

I ended up going 3rd party as well. It's sad, because we need a 3rd party - if not a 4th or a 5th party - desperately, but it's so hard to feel like you are not throwing your vote away. It's a real paradox.

It's interesting what you say about Bernie. DCDawg (where has he gone to?) and I had a discussion back when Bernie was running in 2016 before he got railroaded by the DNC. We both felt he greatly differed from us politically as well, but felt like he was at least more genuinely concerned with the state of our country than the main stream candidates. Was that your impression as well?

3rd party necessity (if pie-in-the-sky)... agreed

Bernie,
Pretty much, yeah. I am sure he thinks his programs are going to help, and feel he cares enough to continue to fight for it. I don't agree with the how, but I do the why. That would've been enough for that election. I also felt that he wouldn't have been able to get much of his more damaging plans through.

I can explain the entire Hillary thing. There are two basic components there.

#1 Who in the hell likes Hillary? I sure don't care for her. And for all of those that claim I'm a so called died in the wool Democrat/liberal, I didn't vote for her either. If I lived in a swing state I would may have voted for her anyway, but that wasn't a position I was faced with. I live in Tennessee. Trump won with 66% of the vote and he'll win the state again. But this time I'm going to vote for Biden anyway.

So her personality alone made her a very unlikable candidate for anyone who wasn't a died in the wool democrat.

#2 Her character and the concept of her corruption had been under attack for years. For anyone that paid attention, she had to face 12 hours of testimony from Republicans over Benghazi. Then there were her emails. She faced an onslaught of being attacked that cast a huge shadow over her.

Now as to whether she held any actual guilt or not is another question. Even after the Trump appointed DOJ investigated her for years after Trump was elected they still couldn't find anything to charge her with. That doesn't mean she isn't guilty of anything. But what it does show is that if she is, the entire DOJ under Trump sure as hell couldn't find it or she would have been charged.

They're trying the same tactic again with Biden but after not being able to charge Hillary with anything after all these years, I think the public is too smart to buy into crazy conspiracy theories again. It's too little, too late.

Elections have never been decided by Democrats or Republicans. Nearly one third of all voters consider themselves Independent. These voters have seen four years of Trump and heard his hateful rhetoric and division being spread the entire time. There is hard evidence with which to base a decision on.

Biden certainly isn't the perfect candidate. But his track record isn't dividing our nation. He isn't some left wing Democrat and he's far more in line with a moderates views than anyone else the Democrats could have nominated that is well known to America.

I always wondered why the compromise couldn't be a state splitting its electoral delegates to the ratio of votes that each candidate received.

The only way that can happen is to repeal it via the Constitution. That would take two thirds of the states to sign off on it.

As long as 30% of the population can control 50% of the senate they'll never agree to giving up that power. Somehow they feel your geographical location should control how much your vote is worth. Go figure....

Agreed and disagreed.

Abolish the electoral college and you have florida, texax, california, and New York deciding the election.

Yes, if you break it down by geography and not people. You either feel Americans should decide our elections or that geography should.

You understand the electoral college is weighted, don't you?

Oh, no, you don't.

I thought yesterday, the democrats don't hate Trump, they hate the person of his identity. They hate the White Christian man.

I thought this, because it occurred to me,
The Democrats attacks are always against "Trump",

Suppose Trump died before the election, of Covid or something, as in current times

Zero of the democrats hate is directed at Mike Pence, it's 100% (the hatred of the democrats is directed towards), towards Trump.

Now Consider, if in 10 Days,

Trump died of Covid and the Democrats were facing an election between Biden and Pence???

Would you see the same amicable, non attention, and acceptance of Mike Pence in that scenario that the democrats ignoring of him shows???

HECK NO you wouldn't!
You'd see the dang, dirty, vitriol, and hate that they attack Trump with today,
directed at Pence,

and you'd see it in one calander day!

-------

The electoral college??

In the first two, at least, presidencies in 1770?, the vice president was the person who received the 2nd most votes for president.

Keep the Electoral college
But make the person who gets the 2nd most votes in the electoral college,

That person, make them the Vice President.

In 2016 - 4,483,810 people voted for Donald Trump in California.

That is more votes than Donald Trump received in: DC, Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, West Virginia and Alaska

COMBINED!!!!!

It's insane that those votes count for nothing...

I'm all for using the popular vote for the President if we fixed a bunch of related stuff along with it.

1) Require 60 Votes to pass a bill in Senate (because the minority still has to have some power)

2) level the playing field for third parties

3) Fix this voting process. 1 set of rules for all 50 states to stop this craziness

4) Congressional Term Limits

5) Rotate the schedule on which primaries occur (Iowa shouldn't pick every presidential candidate)

I have no problem with any item on this list.

In fact, I think these reforms should be made even if they weren't conditions of initiating a National Popular Vote.

.02

In some states, the Democrats would raise taxes over 60%.

The lib(pffs) respond to this saying, "oh he's only going to raise taxes on blah blah blah 400,000 dollars, blah blah blah.

I'm going to make a movie, it's going to be 5 minutes long its a political movie.

It's called Jimmy Wins the Lottery!!

Jimmy is a democrat voter, who plays the lottery, (stupidly because he belives in taxing the rich) but any democrat who wants to tax the rich, what do they hope happens if they play the lottery??

So Jimmy is a democrat voter, (as smart as jack and his beanstalk)
and Jimmy is going to go vote, but he keeps getting reminded how his taxes are going to go up, if the democrats win.

And What do you know, in my movie, Jimmy is the ONE VOTE in all the country to put the democrats into power.

But Jimmy is not worried, he is a regular guy and tax increases, will ony be on people who make 400,000 dollars,

So on his way home from the voting booth, Jimmy buys a lottery tickst:
And Guess what, he wins!

And he gets taxed 60% more than he would have, if he had only voted against the democrats.

And as the movie ends, Jimmy is in the poor house because, like most lottery players they end up poor a short time later.
This character loses it to alcoholism and domestic abuse,
But the overriding theme is, people keep reminding him he would have had 60% lower taxes on his lottery win if he'd only voted against the democrats, and his regret turns to jealousy and a downward trajectory,
because it was found out he was the one and only vote that put the democrats in power.

But, you know, many would say it's a happy story because at least they'd think, (wrongly), the Republican was ousted.

If you vote democrat thinking they only tax the rich

Don't play the lottery hoping to become rich.

That would be democrat voter logic. (Jimmy because I think of the actor Jim Carey, he's playing Biden on SNL these days)

Man you aren't even scratching the surface! If Biden wins they figured out that 24.3% of the population will have PAY the government to work! Tax rates of 116%.

I've said it before - I think you need to broaden your sources of information. I don't typically watch any MSM - but I will watch a little Fox when I do. I have regular articles from the NY Post and other Right leaning outlets. Maybe try the BBC as an easy start.

If by weighted you mean that 30% of voters elect 50% of the senate, yes it is weighted. Weighted against the total population of our nation.

Biden has already reached out to the Chinese about sending Trump supporters to their re-education camps enmasse. So after their trip all these tin foil hat types will be socialist STEM scholars.

If Biden wins, who knows how many they'll round up, but they won't take them to china.
simple logistics.

Until you factor in the all things Trump dread. Dems want all things trump as far away from us as possible... that would be China. Dig a deep hole and fact check me.

Will they be taken to the same abandoned Walmarts that Obama was going to use?

I am not opposed to picking the President based on popular vote, but lets be precise here:
The electoral college does not pick the Senators. Senators are chosen by direct popular vote in their respective states.

The Senate gives more leverage to less populated states than the House which gives leverage based on population. This is a good thing. It is part of the system of checks and balances. If all of the offices were chosen using the exact same criteria, then there is no point in having multiple bodies. Checks and balances are extremely important and a certain amount of grid-lock is a good thing too.

It's quite true that the electoral college is not used in selecting U.S. senators. However the impact is even more slanted in a governing body not being reflective of the population and the power of the vote.

Let's use Kentucky as an example. Their population is 4.5 million people as of 2020. That means if we simplify things and split it down the middle, that each senator in Kentucky represents 2.25 million people. The population of California as of 2020 is 39.96 million people. So if we split that down the middle, each of their U.S. senators equals almost 20 million people. States such as S. Dakota, N. Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont all have less than 1,000,000 in population.

The most extreme example is Wyoming which has a population of 577,737 people. So as it stands, you have the least populated state having equal say in laws of the governing of the entire nation with less than 300,000 people per senator as you do almost 20,000 million people in the most populated state.

Now that may appear to be what you consider a great way to give states an equal say. But what it actually does is makes some American voters have much more power than others. And it isn't close.

As it stands, it gives one party complete control over the decisions that face all Americans with far less voters than what our nation represents as a whole. And I can certainly understand where that seems appealing to some people.

But then that's why they have both the Senate and the House. In this regard, both bodies having equal say is supposed to balance out unequal populations.

What I wonder is how the shifting political landscape plays into this. It seems we've fallen into a cycle over the past couple decades where we get sick of one side and then make wholesale changes over to the other extreme, and switch back and forth.

I don't really see it that way. The vast majority of states never really change for the most part. The only thing that really changes is the moderate vote. And that seems to only be concentrated in what are called the swing states or purple states as some call them for them to have enough power to actually change parties depending on the election.

The biggest contributing factor I've witnessed to states actually changing over from one party to another happens in states where they traditionally vote one way or the other is demographics. If you look at a state like Texas, as the demographics have changed, the more competitive Democrats are becoming there. If the trend continues at its current state, soon Texas will be a blue state.

So I agree we see changes in voting, I don't see it as the wholesale changes you describe.

Now as for the Senate. It sounds great in theory. The problem becomes when the senate has the final say. The house is fairly represented by the population. They propose the bills which then are sent to the senate. The senate then has the power. Over the past 12 years it has been used as an arm of obstruction and manipulation. Not the governing body it is described to be.

In theory the senate is supposed to bring the bills passed by the congress to the floor for debate. They are supposed to hold hearings on presidential nominees for the federal court.

The manipulation. Yet during Obama's presidency they refused to hold hearing on Obama's nominees for the federal court to the point that there were over 100 open vacancies in the federal court system when Trump took office. Which they quickly rubber stamped every judge Trump threw their way. So he got to appoint not only the open positions of when he was president, but also the openings that happened under Obama's presidency.

The obstruction. Over 200 bills are stacked up somewhere in McConnell's office that he refuses to even bring to the senate floor for debate. So while they are supposed to actually listen to and debate these bills. Look for compromise on such bills, they just file them away and ignore them. As it ends up, simply voting down bills even many voters in their own party may want, it's much more convenient just to act as they don't exist.

What has happened is we have a large minority of American voters electing a legislative body to do nothing but stack our court system to favor their ideology and refuse to even look at bills the vast majority of American voters would like some resolution to.

None of that equals an "even say".

Here is Trump leaving the 60 minutes interview. Video released by the Trump Campaign

What a whiner.

Did someone in the background say "we're ready for the next president now"?

I think they are ready for the "vice president"

Pence and Trump were supposed to sit down together for the next part of the interview, but Trump canned it and didn't do that part.

Trump breaks agreement with CBS News by releasing his own video of ❛60 Minutes❜ interview

President Donald Trump followed through on his threat, or promise, to release video of his interview with CBS News journalist Leslie Stahl before it is set to air on “60 Minutes” on Sunday night.

Trump was interviewed by Stahl at the White House on Tuesday, but abruptly ended the interview after 45 minutes, declining to participate in a scheduled walk-and-talk that would have included vice president Mike Pence as well. Later that day, he said on Twitter said that he was “considering” posting the White House’s copy of the video interview, “so that everybody can get a glimpse of what a FAKE and BIASED interview is all about.”

Then, on Thursday morning, after he again teased a release of the video (“the vicious attempted ‘takeout” interview of me”), a 37-minute-clip of the interview appeared on the president’s Facebook page.

In posting the interview, Trump and the White House violated an agreement with CBS News that the White House was taping the interview “for archival purposes only,” said a network source with knowledge of the interview.

CBS, for its part, posted a 90-second-long preview of the Trump interview on social media on Thursday morning, with “More Sunday on @CBS.” (The show will also include an interview of Joe Biden by Norah O’Donnell.)

In the clip posted by CBS, Stahl challenges Trump when he says that his administration “created the greatest economy in the history of our country.” Stahl retorts, “You know that’s not true. No.”

In the clip posted by Trump, Stahl begins the interview by asking the president, “Are you ready for some tough questions?” Trump replies, “Just be fair. .. I’m looking for fairness.” Stahl says that Trump “is going to get fairness.”

A CBS News spokesperson did not immediately respond when asked to comment on the president’s decision to unilaterally post video of the interview.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-worl...utes-interview/

CBS made the mistake of expecting Trump to honor an agreement. Haven't they been paying attention? There is no honor in Trump.

J/C

Judging by the replies in this thread, I wonder who actually watched the video and understood the message of the video.

GC. If the Democrats win we might as well tear down the Statue of Liberty!

It's wrong to hear people say Biden doesn't have a plan

Biden and the democrats, pelosi, shumur, others DO HAVE A PLAN

They plan to Cow Tow to Communist interests,

and Subjegate the American people,

And through edict steal any value still evident in the American economy, or people.

And I'm not sure if it is to further enrich communist leaning billionaires, or just use those billionaires until they turn on them too.

But it's FALSE to say the democrats don't have a plan.

They do have a plan, they have had MORE of a plan then the Correct side of the aisle, for 30 YEARS OR MORE,

the problem is it's such an awful, evil, destructive, life threatening, liberty threatening plan,

that I can't believe anybody, ever voted for it, even once.

And this time, they just might pull it off.

Like (dummys) playing on an oversized beach before the tsunami wave hits, democrat voters appear to be blind to the consequences.

GC. I just thought of something

With over 15 million, maybe it was closer to 40 million,

With about 25% of the numbers of 2016 voters, already casting ballots in early voting across the country,

and 10 days to go before election day;

What would happen if a candidate died in the process and their VP, Pence or Kamala, then headed the ticket, with more than a week before voting day.

How would they count the votes already cast,
Would they have to throw them all out.

Complicated - as it depends exactly when they die.

https://www.vox.com/21502447/trump-biden-death-what-happens